The National Human Rights Commission of Korea recommends the Minister of National Defense to improve the handling of patients in Army hospitals.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRCK) recommended recently that the Minister of National Defense improve the patient handover system to prevent any gap in medical care for hospitalized military patients, in the absence of army surgeons. Additionally, the recommendation requests that the Minister take appropriate actions to preempt any delay in transportation of patients needing emergency care, in the case of vehicle shortage.
The complainant, a 49-year-old female known as “J,” filed the complaint with the Commission in March 2007, claiming that her son, who underwent joint surgery at an “A” Army Hospital in April 2006, suffered from joint stiffness because the surgeon did not properly inform his colleagues of the patient’s condition or aftercare before taking leave. Therefore, the proceeding surgeon was ignorant of the patient’s status and did not prescribe physical therapy or rehabilitation. The successive surgeon was then immediately dispatched to another site and left the patient unattended. The complainant asserted that the Army surgeons must be held accountable for her son’s condition.
The respondents, Army surgeons from the Orthopedic Department of the “A” Army Hospital, stated that the patient’s condition was properly communicated by the original surgeon to his sentry. Further, the respondents held that patient was never left unattended and that the successive surgeon handed over relevant affairs to his colleague prior to his dispatch. Since there are no concrete guidelines regarding such handover of duties, the respondents believed that this lack of formality caused the tension. However, the Ministry of National Defense replied that there was no significant need to formulate guidelines on the matter, as military hospitals operate under the same patient management system that is employed in civilian hospitals.
Based on the investigation, the Commission acknowledged that both the original surgeon and the successive surgeon had passed their duties onto their respective replacements prior to dispatch and leave. However, the Commission also concluded that the comparison of procedures to a civilian hospital is unfounded. In a civilian hospital, a doctor in charge of a hospitalized patient cannot file a request for business travel unless an alternative doctor is designated beforehand. Given this, the Commission believes that the hand over of patients at military hospitals is probably conducted in an arbitrary manner in many respects, and that measures to redress the high risk of medical care gaps must be taken.
In another complaint pertaining to infringement on a soldier’s right to medical services, a 24-year-old male, known as “Ch,” maintained that his younger brother, who is currently in a military hospital after being discharged, was healthy enough to not receive any significant medical treatment at a hospital before enlistment and joined the Army in June 2006 under the first physical checkup grade. According to the complainant, his brother developed meningitis at a boot camp center of an Army division, and was neglected proper care by Army surgeons and physicians. The complainant stated, “The Army surgeon at the boot camp center failed to detect my brother’s meningitis, and made an erroneous diagnosis that he was suffering from a cold more than three times. The Army surgeon associated with the division’s medical corps also failed to discover my brother’s disease and even delayed his transfer to a hospital on grounds that there was no space in a vehicle transporting patients. When my brother was finally hospitalized at a military hospital, even the army surgeon there provided only an internal medical prescription. My brother was not transported to a civilian hospital until he collapsed, showing signs of paralysis. The civilian hospital discovered that he was suffering from meningitis-degenerated cerebral infraction.”
In both of these cases, the complainants requested that Army surgeons be held responsible for malpractice.
The respondents, Army surgeons attending to “Ch”’s brother, replied that medical corps of military units at below the division level can hardly detect meningitis, due to a lack of medical facilities and equipment in the military. They also said that the patient in question did not show distinct signs that would have prompted them to suspect meningitis. Additionally, the respondents held that they have been making efforts to eliminate problems with the delays in transporting patients.
The Commission’s investigation and on advice from external experts agreed, “It is difficult to judge whether or not the measures taken by the Army surgeons were legitimate. Even a civilian doctor would find it difficult to detect meningitis. In addition, it was difficult for a military hospital to conduct a speedy diagnosis because the symptoms of the patient were atypical.” From this, the Commission determined that it would be inappropriate to undertake an investigation into liability of the army surgeons, which falls under the realm of medical expertise. However, the Commission recommends that the Minister of National Defense review operational problems that have been causing the delays in patient transportation, due to a lack of vehicles.
The National Human Rights Commission of Korea was established in 2001 to promote human rights education and defend those who have experienced discrimination, or have had a right violated, in Korea. The Commission offers counseling, full investigation and protection for citizens, along with educational initiatives for organizations.
